Spirituality in the New World Order: Is a One World Religious Authority in Formation?

Last September, Israel’s ex-President Shimon Peres asked Pope Francis to head a future “UN of religions”, a proposed organisation with “unquestionable” authority to proclaim God’s will. Peres argued globalising faith under a single world authority is required to combat terrorism. Is this concept, which has major implications, really about peace, or is there a darker agenda behind it?

6bb712cfda354f519cf4bfc11d439e37 (crop)

Pope Francis with Shimon Peres in June 2014. Source: UltimasNoticias

For some time now, political and economic decision-making power has devolved away from citizens and the nation-state to global multilateral organisations. As these organisations shape a new global order favouring corporate and financial elites, local populations have a diminished say in economic decisions affecting them – especially when represented by careerist politicians more aligned to the global elite.

Lately there have been signs of a top-down push for the globalisation of religion as well, with calls for global political authority over the world’s spirituality.

The most obvious drive came last September when former President of Israel, Shimon Peres met with the Pope to propose the formation of a new “U.N. of religions”, which the Pope would head. Peres suggested this organisation should wield the “unquestionable” authority to declare what God does and does not want, in order to combat religious extremism.

The implications are huge. 84 percent of the world’s population has a spiritual faith of some kind. Together the Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist religions are followed by more 5.3 billion people, and a diverse mix of folk beliefs and smaller minority faiths, from Bahai to Wicca, account for almost another half billion. With spirituality playing a central role in the lives of most of the world’s population, it would seem “global governance” must inevitably take religion into account.

Various theorists have suggested a “One World Religion” will emerge as part of a “New World Order”. Is it possible that powerful people in the global elite desire – if not an actual monolithic world faith – then a global hegemony over the world’s spirituality, so that religions, and their followers, can be influenced through a central authority? If so, it would mean a similar model of top-down globalisation via multilateral organisations as deployed in politics, economics and trade, would be rolled out to spirituality.

But just how noble are the intentions of those vending this idea? Is their rhetoric bona fide? A closer examination suggests such a scheme is highly suspect, and part of broader agenda with ominous implications.

The Blueprint for a Global Religious Authority

Before his September meeting with the Pope to discuss forming a “U.N. of religions”, Shimon Peres detailed his ideas in an interview with Italian Catholic magazine Famiglia Cristiana.


Pope Francis prayed for peace with Mahmoud Abbas and Shimon Peres in June 2014. Source: UltimasNoticias

“What is needed is an Organisation of United Religions, a U.N. of religions. It would be the best way to combat these terrorists who kill in the name of faith”, Peres was quoted. “In the past, the majority of wars were motivated by the idea of nationhood. Today, instead, wars are sparked above all with the excuse of religion,” he said.

Global interfaith religious initiatives already exist, such as the United Religions Initiative, but evidently Peres envisages a much more top-down and authoritative “Organisation of United Religions”. He was quite blunt about the proposed organisation’s power: “What is needed is an unquestionable moral authority that says in a strong voice ‘No, God does not want this and does not permit it’.” He suggested the Pope lead it because “he is perhaps the only leader who is truly respected”.


Francis and Peres at the Vatican meeting in September 2014. Source: The Jerusalem Post

The Pope was reportedly sympathetic, but made no “decision or personal commitment” and it remains to be seen whether this new body materialises.

Peres is not the first elite political figure to champion such an approach however. I have written before about Tony Blair’s Faith Foundation, the former UK Prime Minister’s eponymous charity which focuses on “faith and globalisation”. In January 2014 Blair wrote a widely republished essay stating what his foundation seeks to do:

“…the purpose is to change the policy of governments: to start to treat this issue of religious extremism as an issue that is about religion as well as politics, to go to the roots of where a false view of religion is being promulgated, and to make it a major item on the agenda of world leaders to combine effectively to combat it. This is a struggle that is only just beginning.”

Much like Peres, Blair has argued religious extremism is the prime cause of conflict in the world today, and world leaders must unite to address it. Also, like Peres, he claimed a political authority should have the power to determine which religious views are “false”.

Blair, too, also sought support from the Vatican, which leads the world’s largest religious congregation. However, despite being a recently-converted Catholic, Blair was not very successful when he made overtures to the Vatican in 2011, and one prominent Catholic scholar, Professor Michel Schooyans, believed the former UK leader had sinister objectives:

One of the aims of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation will be that of remaking the major religions, just as his colleague Barack Obama will remake global society. With this purpose, the foundation in question will try to expand the ‘new rights’, using the world religions for this end and adapting these for their new duties. The religions will have to be reduced to the same common denominator, which means stripping them of their identity …

This project threatens to set us back to an age in which political power was ascribed the mission of promoting a religious confession, or of changing it. In the case of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, this is also a matter of promoting one and only one religious confession, which a universal, global political power would impose on the entire world. (source)

Blair’s attempt to claim religious extremism is the root cause of today’s global conflict, while at the same time stubbornly justifying his deceptive role in the invasion of Iraq – and calling for more direct military intervention in the Middle East – was always going to raise eyebrows. Given his lack of credibility as a peace advocate, it’s not surprising to see a different retired world leader lobbying for religious globalisation at the Vatican.

The recently-retired Peres seems a much better fit for the job. While Blair has a hawkish reputation, Peres is considered to have transformed into a “dove” in his later years in office, where he appeared mild in comparison to some of his more hard-line Zionist compatriots. Pope Francis, who has been a PR coup for Church and was named TIME Magazine’s Man of the Year, also has the credibility and clout to lead such an initiative, a fact Peres seems well aware of.

So is this a legitimate initiative to promote peace, or something else?

Questionable Advocates

Blair and Peres in July 2014 source

Despite their superficial differences, the core argument Peres and Blair make is the same: religious extremism is responsible for today’s conflict, and a global political authority needs to wield control over religions. While religiously-motivated violence, particularly in the Islamic world, is undoubtedly a major problem, this argument is extremely deceptive and duplicitous, because it ignores the hidden (and not so hidden) hand which inflamed this problem, and actively works to sustain it.

The fact is the root cause of the explosion of extremist violence in the Middle East has been destructive foreign policies of NATO governments and its allies.

The invasion of Iraq, which Blair co-led, was based on outright lies about the country having weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). The war killed up to a million people, destroyed its secular government, military and infrastructure. The ensuing chaos enabled religious extremists to ravage the region, first as Al Qaeda in Iraq (who had no presence there before the war) and now via the self-proclaimed Islamic State formerly known as ISIS.

Though seen as a “dove” now, Peres also has a chequered past when it comes to promoting world peace which includes being associated with war crimes and acting as a major architect of Israel’s covert nuclear weapons program. It’s an open secret that Israel has an undisclosed nuclear WMD stockpile. Israel began its secret nuclear weapons program in the 1950s, stealing nuclear secrets and materials from many countries, including the USA. Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan boasts that Peres recruited him as an Israeli spy and smuggler in a Tel Aviv nightclub in 1965 for this nuclear program.

In the mid-70s, Israel sought to sell nuclear weapons to apartheid South Africa. Documents obtained by The Guardian and published in 2010 reveal that in 1975 Shimon Peres, then Israel’s defence minister, was in direct negotiations with his South African counterpart and offered to sell the nation nukes “in three sizes”.

Both Blair and Peres have a shady association with WMDs. In assessing their calls for religious globalisation, purportedly to promote peace, we have to ask ourselves: can we really trust a person who lied about WMDs, and another who tried to proliferate them?

A False Premise

The arguments of Blair and Peres also wilfully ignore how the foreign policy of the US government and its allies has fomented Islamic extremism since the 70’s, when the CIA funded and armed the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan to draw the Soviets into a proxy war, a tactic which gave rise to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. In a similar vein, the current foreign policy of the US government and its allies has created ISIS, a fact a retired US General almost admitted in an apparent Freudian slip.

After Iraq’s military and government were pulverised, NATO later turned its attention to Libya and bombed it into a failed state while backing jihadist rebels to topple Gaddafi (both countries formerly had secular governments which kept religious extremism at bay). When Libya fell, Jihadist fighters and weapons began flooding into Syria, which has a secular regime the US government has also sought to topple. In Libya, ISIS is now being led by a rebel NATO directly backed to overthrow Gaddafi.

When ISIS, now calling itself the Islamic State, crossed the Syrian border into Iraq in 2014, the war-torn country was unable to prevent the incursion. In Syria, where a civil war continues to rage, the US government and its allies have been arming and training so-called “moderate” rebels to overthrow the Assad government, despite these rebels having links to Jihadists. Many of these weapons and fighters funded by the US government have ended up in the ranks of ISIS, which also happens to be fighting Assad. There are also recent reports the Iraqi government arrested US and Israeli military advisors in the country this month for directly aiding Islamic State terrorists there. Such connections between the US government and ISIS are apparent even while the US government is supposed to be fighting ISIS in the Middle East at the same time. It seems a geopolitical “double game” is being played. See more on the origins of ISIS/the Islamic State in the video below:

There is a pattern here. The regimes threatened by this foreign policy are secular, and bringing war and chaos to them only favours the rise of extremist groups like the Islamic State, whose recruitment is bolstered further by foreign airstrikes or drone attacks which inevitably kill civilians and cause outrage. At the same time, these extremists “accidently” receive the benefits of funding and weapons provided by the US government and its allies.

Surely changing this destructive and self-defeating foreign policy is the first point of order if reducing global conflict and religious extremism is your objective?

But what if that is not the real objective?

Problem Reaction Solution

The pattern of arming and backing extremists, and fighting them later, has been going on for so long that it’s difficult to believe these “side effects” are purely accidental.

problemreactionsolution“Problem, Reaction, Solution” describes a process where rulers create a problem, provoking a reaction from the public who demand something be done about it, which then allows the government to bring in its pre-prepared “solution” to solve the problem it created.

The war on terror is a case in point. By continually fuelling the fires of extremism, it keeps the war going. This justifies continued military expenditure, foreign interventions, and the reduction of civil liberties on the home front where a security state is constructed. Since the enemy, “terrorism”, is vague and interchangeable, the war has no end in sight. This means police state measures like mass surveillance can become permanent and entrenched.

The “war on terror” serves multiple ends. While the political and military impacts are more understood, the spiritual implications are less so. It has made religious extremism, presently of the Islamic persuasion, the scapegoat for today’s global conflict – not the foreign policy which has fuelled it, funded it, and enabled it to thrive.

In the case of the wars in the Middle East, there is evidently an attempt to pit Christian and Muslim societies of the world against each other in a manufactured “clash of civilisations” which serves the military industrial complex. Interestingly, certain prominent atheists, some of whom are vehemently opposed to all religions, have been stridently supporting this militarism.

Perhaps it is from the ashes of this conflagration that a one world religion will emerge; because increasingly this same manufactured “extremist” threat is being invoked in calls for the top-down globalisation of religion.

This is where the global agenda towards spirituality intersects with the war on terror in the new world order. In addition to sustaining perpetual war, it provides a pretext for a one world religious authority.

Parallels between War on Terror and the War on Alternative Spirituality

If a one world religious authority is the end game elites are working toward, then it would not be the first strategy employed to control spiritual options by exploiting fear toward a manufactured threat.

Many people do not realise that a concerted campaign against alternative spirituality has been raging in the West for many decades now. It was sparked by a major catastrophic event, much like the war on terror: the Jonestown massacre. This tragedy at a remote Christian commune in the jungles of Guyana in 1978 resulted in the largest death toll on US civilians by human acts until the September 11 terrorist attacks, and its aftermath sparked a deluge of fear-based propaganda.

Contrary to popular belief, most people did not commit suicide at Jonestown by drinking “Kool Aid”. There was not even any Kool Aid there. Most people were systematically murdered by lethal injection, a finding confirmed by coronary evidence from the scene, where massive quantities of psychiatric mind control drugs were also discovered. The coronary evidence was “lost” by US officials and autopsies of the dead were “botched” behind closed doors on a US base.

The mass suicide story originated from a CIA report dispatched from Guyana before any officials had investigated the crime scene. This story was repeated in the mainstream media by “experts” – the most prominent being medical professionals with ties to US government mind control research programs such as MK-ULTRA (under which covert illegal experiments were done on inmates of prisons and psychiatric institutes).

The Dark Alliance between the anti-cult movement, government and media

Capitalising on the hysteria generated by the Jonestown massacre, the anti-cult movement became a powerful force fuelling a moral panic with a media platform. Psychologist Margaret Singer, one of its leading luminaries with a background in mind control research for the US military, touted the unsubstantiated theory that so-called “cults” (the new de facto label for any organised belief operating outside a major religious institution) use sophisticated brainwashing techniques. The CIA claimed its own mind control attempts were unsuccessful and “useless” in spite of having vast funds channelled into black projects, secrecy, qualified scientists, drugs, sophisticated technology, and electroshock “therapy” at its disposal. Yet the former government researcher Singer, and her high-profile associate Louis Jolyon West, an MK-ULTRA psychiatrist, wanted people to believe that small, poorly resourced spiritual groups could accomplish what the entire machinery of US government claimed it could not.

The media bought it, and embraced it. Even though Singer’s theory lacked scientific acceptance – and the courts ended her lucrative career as a paid “expert” witness in religious cases after her theories were debunked and rejected – her ideology continued to be sold by the anti-cult movement and uncritically repeated by journalists.

The result was a massive disinformation campaign. After Jonestown there was an explosion of media propaganda about small religious groups which conditioned the population to fear alternative spirituality and led to the online censorship of alternative beliefs. A shift in perception occurred where any group that was small and unconventional was, by default, now a “cult”. This pejorative label, rare before Jonestown, was used with astounding regularity in the media after the massacre, and became conflated with death and suicide. It was vague enough to encompass anything, which meant thousands of harmless groups became guilty until proven innocent and associated with evil. Jonestown also maligned the idea of living in an alternative community, religious or otherwise. Gathering with others to pursue a lifestyle different from the status quo became suspect.

Drastic Impacts


Government tanks at the siege and destruction of the Branch Davidian community (source)

This hysteria sometimes had tragic consequences. During the siege of the Branch Davidian’s ranch at WACO in 1993, leading figures of the anti-cult movement were on the scene encouraging law enforcement to use force against the community. The military-style raid and siege, in which tanks and helicopters surrounded the ranch and pyrotechnic military tear gas rounds were fired against the community’s premises, precipitated a disaster, with most of the members dying in a fire inside their ranch while besieged. It was a tragedy that could have been avoided.

A prominent presence at the siege was the founder of the “Cult Education Institute”, a self-styled “cult expert”. The Cult Education Institute originally bore the eponymous name “Rick A. Ross Institute for the Study of Destructive Cults, Controversial Groups, and Movements”, after its founder. The mind control psychologist Margaret Singer (who is now deceased) was on its advisory board.


A composite of WACO images (source)

At the WACO siege, the controversial founder of this institute was influencing both the media’s coverage and the government’s actions, despite having no formal qualifications beyond a high school diploma. He was hired by CBS as an analyst and appeared widely on other networks. He reportedly had unparalleled access to, and influence upon, agents of the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF/ATF) who were conducting the siege. Although the Justice Department later claimed the FBI did not “rely” on his advice, according to Professor Nancy T. Ammerman, the FBI’s interview transcripts reveal he was “closely involved” with both the FBI and BATF, and, “The BATF interviewed the persons he directed them to and evidently used information from those interviews in planning their February 28 raid.” Ammerman alleges he recommended that agents “attempt to humiliate Koresh” (the community’s leader) and “the FBI was evidently listening” based on the strategy it employed to embarrass Koresh. All of this occurred despite the FBI being aware that this “cult expert” had ‘“… a personal hatred for all religious cults” and would willingly aid law enforcement in an attempt to “destroy a cult.”’

There was more about his background that should have raised red flags. This same “expert”, who was convicted of burglary in his 20s, had another run-in with the law in 1991 after he was hired as a “deprogrammer” to detain and “deprogram” an 18-year-old member of the Pentecostal church, who was wrestled to the ground and dragged into a van by the “deprogrammer’s” associates. In a civil trial later filed by the abductee, the jury found the “deprogrammer” had “intentionally or recklessly acted in a way so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community”. The court found him liable for conspiracy to deprive an individual of his civil rights and religious liberties.


Chinese officials destroy a Christian Church in Wenzhou in 2014. Source: The Telegraph

Interestingly, this figure is also regarded as an authority in communist China where he is invited to speak at anti-cult symposiums. The communist government in China only sanctions five government-controlled religions, and labels and suppresses anything else an “evil cult”, including Christians and Buddhists. In the case of one heavily persecuted new religious movement, Falun Gong, investigative reports have demonstrated the government has targeted members with live organ harvesting. This horrendous fact has not stopped this cult expert from supporting the Chinese government’s propaganda. It is rather telling that the views of a Western anti-cult activist are in accord with an authoritarian communist regime suppressing religious freedom and committing human rights violations.

In the West however, the anti-cult campaign mostly takes place on the internet. To this end, the Cult Education Institute website hosts a forum which, while claiming to be a “free speech zone”, actually functions something like a virtual inquisition: anonymous posters can start their own witch hunt and accuse people and groups of anything without any accountability, while attempts by those accused to refute allegations are, by some accounts, met with censorship, deletion and being banned from the forums. Not exactly free speech.

The Cult Education Institute is just one component in a bigger machine working against alternative spirituality, but the way its founder has successfully influenced the media and government is an example of how this larger machine operates.

While the dark alliance between government, media and the anti-cult movement is unofficial in most Western countries, it has been legally codified in France where the anti-sect movement has installed its inquisitorial ideology into the country’s institutions. This has led to the circulation and use of a blacklist of so-called sects (the French equivalent of “cults”) created by Parliament, and the creation of the Orwellian agency MIVILUDES (Inter-ministerial Mission for Vigilance and Fighting against Sectarian Deviances) which targets “thought crime”, which it defines as the ‘sin’ of holding “certain ideas which differ from the ideas generally accepted by society”. This creates a situation where people’s freedom of belief and association is actively repressed by the government, media and anti-spiritual organisations acting in concert. As explained by the European Interreligious Forum for Religious Freedom (EIFRF):

MIVILUDES, throughout the years, has engaged in numerous campaigns not only against new religious movements targeted as “sects”, but also against small communities of older religions, whether Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical or other. They have even organized raids in communities, arriving with journalists and making strong derogatory comments in order to further their agenda of labelling these communities as “sects”.

…someone could think that this only applies to new groups, small unusual groups, New Age or Satanist or any small religion, and think that “this will only happen to others”. The truth is that MIVILUDES and anti-sect associations have been targeting Catholic communities, Evangelical Christians, Hindu communities, amongst others, as “sects”.  The sect is the religion someone wants to get the rid of.” (source)

The Bigger Picture: A War on Consciousness

If we step back and look at the bigger picture, it becomes apparent the campaign against alternative spirituality, and the global push for consolidation of the world’s major religions, may function as two prongs of a global strategy to contain and control spiritual freedom in a war on consciousness.

In both cases, people with religious or spiritual beliefs are portrayed as the source of major scourges threatening society, breeding either “cults” or “extremists”:

  • There are shady government connections to major crimes committed by heinous villains, and these crimes are then exploited to galvanise a response.
  • The crimes of the heinous few are invoked in fear-based propaganda to fabricate the perception of a broader and existential threat menacing society, which fuels a moral panic.
  • This results in the public calling for authorities to rectify the problem, and manufactures their consent for the imposed solution, which, though it involves stripping freedoms away, people believe is in their best interests.

The campaign against alternative spirituality may be the first step in this war on consciousness. It has served to cut down on spiritual options within society, while conditioning people to fear alternative spiritual possibilities. It has made taboo any attempt to organise in a spiritual group or community outside of major established religious institutions. When operating outside the status quo is automatically suspect, people are more likely to conform, and less likely to venture outside the box.

The global control of religions may be the next step. After the options have been cut down, this strategy may serve to control and influence the spiritual options that remain.

The world’s major religious institutions are too big and too established to simply be suppressed like smaller groups are. However, creating a global body with the “unquestionable” authority to dictate what God considers acceptable or not, allows those in that elite position to set their parameters across various major faiths. A global consensus can be set. Anything operating outside of the elite body’s guidelines, or without its endorsement, would then be isolated and excluded, seen as rogue or wrong – a “cult”. That would include alternative spiritual groups already being targeted, but also denominations of major religions that refuse to fall under the command of a one world authority.

shutterstock_147645284Under such a model, religions need not be replaced with a single monolithic faith as some predict; rather a central body could influence and infiltrate the world’s major faiths while leaving their external appearance intact. Central decrees could be fed out and passed down within the guise of the tradition people are most accustomed to in different cultures.

Under this model, the “one world religion” would be more like an octopus, where each arm may appear different, but ultimately links back to the same source, and serves it.

Divide and Conquer: The End Game for Spirituality

The consequences of a one world religion are immense, if you think about it.

Whatever differences people in the world may have, ultimately we are of the same source and substance. If a global elite limit and control how human consciousness can experience the world, won’t they essentially control humanity?

“Spirituality”, in its broadest sense, gives people a conduit to a higher source, a power which the rulers of this world cannot control. Whatever people call that power – God, Divinity or Higher Consciousness – spirituality can provide a way for people to connect to and derive strength from that higher source in some way.

In ancient times, spiritual figures venerated in major religions had a profound impact on people and the world. Even in recent history, spirituality has been central to the lives of extremely influential people, such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King. Whatever one may think of their individual religious views, there is no denying their convictions empowered them, and through their actions, they had a profound positive impact on society.

Having a spiritual connection can allow people to awaken their perception to a bigger picture of life, and activate and awaken consciousness. This can make someone less easy to manipulate and control. However, at the same time, it cannot be denied that spiritual and religious beliefs can also be used by corrupt people to manipulate and control others, and suppress alternative points of view – which may explain the drive to create a one world religious authority.

That is why, I believe, there is an ongoing agenda to cut down on the spiritual options people have, and then control the options which remain. It seems to me there are certain powerful forces operating in this world that do not want people to awaken consciousness and connect with a higher spiritual power.

shutterstock_118522504For this anti-spiritual war on consciousness to be effective, people have to be divided. Once divided they can easily be conquered: divide and conquer is a strategy used by elite powers throughout history.

A lucid description of how this strategy succeeds is found in the famous quote attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller, who initially supported the rise of Nazism in Germany because he opposed communism like the Nazis did, but became disillusioned when the regime sought to control the churches and persecuted Christians. By the time he opposed the dictatorship, the Nazi regime was entrenched and he was put in a concentration camp.

Although the exact wording of his quote is unclear because he used different versions, the most widely used version is this:

   First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—

   Because I was not a Socialist.

   Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—

   Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

   Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—

   Because I was not a Jew.

   Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Other versions mention different parties targeted such as the “incurables” (the incurably sick and physically/mentally disabled who were forcibly euthanized) and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who were persecuted and completely banned in Germany at that time. But regardless of which version is used, the key message is the same.

On a global scale, divide and conquer is happening in the way Christian and Muslim societies are being pitted against each other in a perpetual war serving the military industrial complex and hollowing out civil liberties in the West. While the wars continue to rage, few notice the hidden hand moving the geopolitical pawns on both sides of the chessboard – playing them off against each other – as the spectre of religious extremism fuelled by the conflict paves the road to a one world religious authority.

In the case of the campaign against spirituality within Western society, divide and conquer also applies. A “new age” group is unlikely to defend a Christian community being persecuted, because they are not Christian. In reverse, a Christian group may not defend a new age group attacked as a “cult” because its beliefs are different. And even within a major tradition like Christianity, a large denomination may not defend the persecution of a smaller one, because it considers it heretical, and therefore may even seek to destroy it.

Unfortunately, due to fanaticism, some religious bodies actively work to persecute other groups, because they wish to assert their own religious supremacy. Witness the Christian counter cult movement, whose definition of a “cult” is roughly equivalent to the definition of a “heresy” – basically anything which does not conform to their own beliefs.

Those who work to attack the spiritual freedom of others fail to realise they are aiding forces that ultimately have all spirituality and religions in their cross hairs in a divide and conquer strategy. Once the smaller targets are picked off, those forces will seek to assimilate the larger institutions into their greater plan too.

It is from this strategy that a one world religious authority may eventually emerge.

Finding Common Ground

When there is freedom of spiritual expression, all individuals benefit from having the right to explore spirituality by the avenue they wish, even if it may be different from what others choose (or if they choose to abstain from spirituality completely). Freedom is the common ground – the common right – that benefits everyone. In a society where this freedom exists, spiritual expression can flourish and consciousness can awaken.

People can defend freedom without endorsing what others choose to do with it, by understanding the common interest it serves. Everyone who values spirituality has a stake in freedom. If we cannot find that common ground, and respect each other’s differences, then we are easy to divide and conquer.

If we continue to allow ourselves to be divided, by the time we come to understand the end game for spirituality in a new world order, it may be too late.

About Matthew Osmund

Matthew Osmund is a freelance writer with a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism, an open mind and a keen interest in defending personal freedom and uncovering the truth. He's been exploring spirituality and consciousness for 10 years and writes at The Conscious Reporter about issues that affect and suppress human potential, consciousness, alternative beliefs, and the right to free expression of spirituality in the world.


  1. The Universal Church, instituted by Christ, was and is intended for all mankind. It doesn’t mean its members are perfect or intended to control the world….because the Universal Church is of the world but not in it, not in its intent.

    If anyone wants to know what the Universal Church teaches and practices, it is very easy and most transparent, our liturgy open to the public. You can go online and get yourself a Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church. It has footnotes for every doctrine, the majority of them from Sacred Scripture. There you can see the beliefs of the Universal Church, He Ekklesia Katolika so named by St. Ignatius of Antioch on his way to martyrdom in 107 AD.

    I have no desire whatsoever to be a member of anything else.

    • Hi Kathleen, your comment didn’t really address the issues raised in this article, which is not about a praising or critiquing a particular religion.

      I respect everyone’s right to follow whatever religion or Church they choose. But these political development’s, whereby an elite powerful few have an expressed desire to create a central political influence of over all major religions, could impact on religious liberty for everyone, regardless of their faith. Not to mention change the character of religions radically.

      There are a number of Catholic’s who are not happy about such developments by the way (one is quoted in the article), who don’t want their Church used for political machinations by globalists who don’t really care for anyone’s religion, but have another political agenda they want religions to serve. Seeing as you obviously care about your religion, perhaps you should pay more consideration to these issues.

  2. If that scenario is true, we are already in big troubles…
    I’ve heard before that high scaled evil is coming from the Vatican but looks like none can touch them and reveal it in front of the justice court.
    It reminds me what someone said “…darkness is griped from the other side and taking control of the way that society works”

    In that kind of sense looks impossible to turn down this kind of mechanism Vatican uses that have roots everywhere and mainly in the western society.

    But I think that even just expose some information, us you did may rise some people’s awareness and make us explore our own darkness inside and make use of the light to get rid of it.
    So, thanks for that!

  3. A religion etched out by politicians? How inspiring — where do I sign up? 😉

    This one world religion plan has been concerning me for a long while now. It’s amazing seeing time and time again all the different ways this agenda is being pushed out…

    On a semi-related subject, Matthew, have you ever considered how interesting it is that UNESCO has exclusive authority over so many sacred or ancient sites around the world? I know it’s for “preservation” and protection, upkeep, and study of these places — but something tells me there’s more behind this need to control access to all these sites…

    • Yes, especially when ISIS/Islamic State forces have been carefully targeting and attacking renown museums and archaeological sites found in several UNESCO “protected” cities such as Palmyra (Syria) and Hamtra, Nimrud and Mosul (Iraq), openly destroying priceless ancient Assyrian artifacts that could perhaps provide humanity with some important clues and insight to its’ historical spiritual heritage.

  4. I read this article with interest. If you wish to research the topic further you may like to check out the work of Ken Wilber, an American philosopher who has to date flown largely under the radar of the alternative movement. He is working non-stop to try and integrate the world’s contemplative religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, Sufism etc) into a single all-encompassing system, which could be used as a template for a one-world religion. He’s even started as institute to promote his vision (visit http://www.integrallife.com for details). Some very big names (Deepak Chopra, Al Gore, Bill Clinton etc) have cited him as an influence. Very worrying!

  5. Won’t that be great, a world wide Taliban!

  6. We hear a lot about how the threat of terrorism is used to justify various laws that allow more and more surveillance and monitoring of people, but virtually no examination of how it’s used to justify control of spirituality or religion, which is alarming given that the majority of people on earth subscribe to some form of faith. Thanks very much for such a detailed and much-needed investigation into this topic.

    I am also amazed at the intricate web of wars, mass murders, the anti-cult movement, and religious authorities linked to governments and political leaders. Whether we like it or not, powers beyond our control are shaping the world and everyone in it. Gone are the days when you could trust authorities to always do the right thing by you, and live your life with confidence that the future for your children and forebears will be better and brighter. Things certainly seem to be to be on a downward trajectory, and all it requires is our complacency. I hope that everyone who sees and is alarmed by the state of affairs is galavanised to action and can come together in defence of all our freedoms.

  7. Thanks for that Matthew. It seems like they’re trying to create a new worldwide version of the Sanhedrin from the Bible. Quite the hidden agenda going on behind nice words there, or even if not, it would inevitably lead to repression and likely far worse if such a body were put in place by the powers that be in the world today.

  8. Thanks for a wonderful article on a subject that I think is very important.

    There’s something terribly unsettling to seeing people and society being unjustly pitted against you.

    The current “war on terror” has so many negative consequences, one (only one of them) is that it’s horrible as a Muslim living in a western country to be painted as a terrorist. To be painted as a threat to society, and living in that environment/society. This also gives those who love to hate the opportunity to discriminate. Which only breeds more hate and sorrow. And in the same vein it’s horrible to see that society is being pitted against spirituality. That people are have been implanted with these mindsets, prejudices and psychological blockades. It is a true pity, as it shuts people of form things that could be so beneficial for them.

    This whole current “war on terror” and the conflicts, I’ve often thought about it: What is the real goal behind it? I think it serves multiple purposes, but the main one is to gain control over the country’s own population(or western world) by these elite groups and dark forces.

    Anyway there’s a lot to comment on this article, but this following part stuck out to me as it puts into words what’s going on so simply and clearly.

    “- There are shady government connections to major crimes committed by heinous villains, and these crimes are then exploited to galvanise a response.
    – The crimes of the heinous few are invoked in fear-based propaganda to fabricate the perception of a broader and existential threat menacing society, which fuels a moral panic.
    – This results in the public calling for authorities to rectify the problem, and manufactures their consent for the imposed solution, which, though it involves stripping freedoms away, people believe is in their best interests.”

    Would be great if that was printed onto tomorrow’s daily newspapers. 😉

    Btw. I really liked reading that last rather uplifting point you mentioned Matthew, about freedom.

  9. Are Y O U kidding?!

    That’s nothing new! Where have you been all thse years?

    1- christianity and judaism is one and the same. jesus brought in a Way of living way from the selfish, insular Pharasism in Judea, but only a few years later, Saul the Pharisee of Jerusalemk changed it all in a U_TURN – right back to Pharasism, and RELIGION. The scum changed his name to Paul, to distance hmself – a big front to fool the sheep – that this religion wasn’t the same ole same ole.

    But christianity is – I S Pharasism aka Talmud judaism. ANd the Jerusalem Pharasees /priests changed their name to rabbis, to make people think there are no more Pharasees, but it’s all the same.

    And Sheep is EXACTLY what christianity calls people.

    During their control of the Roman Empire, the church owned slaves, and brought in the system of “latifundias”= prison farms where the inmates lived and died there, without anyway to escape.

    As christianity advanced, spreading to Europe, they hunted and SLAUGHTERED – whatever ways of thinking rivaled christianity. – they did away with true love and compassion, philosophies, ways of thinking.

    And the same with the ” New ” World.

    And brought in the prison camps again, rounding up all the tribals around the farms, called now, ” Requerimientas”- but they were GULAGS, and the system of control was Communist. THese internment camps were guarded by soldiers, and as the prison population died like flies under the harsh treatment, the soldiers kept going out further and further, rounding up more and more tribals.

    And as the christians had done in the Old WOrld, they hunted and slaughtered shamans, priests, teachers and adherents of other Ways of living.

    So Communism is nothing new- even though christian priests today pretend to be against communism.

    • What a world we live in huh? Although its interesting to see this ‘New World Religion’ unfold right before our eyes in the present time, and in such precise and political fashion, its true that those in power have used religion to take control of society and destroy faith for centuries.

      At the same time, in my opinion, all religion is linked together, carrying a similar thread, a way to reunite with the divine, just retold in different tongues and for different times. The original message is not so blemished as man has made of it.

  10. Any organization yielding an authoritative power to dictate what God says is right or wrong is already a fallacy and opens the door for more witch hunting and more extreme fanaticism coming from such governmental body.

    No one has the power and ability to dictate the internal connection of an individual with the divine; however, if such body exists, it will have the power to yield externally and in society how people can behave, which temple, church, mosque, synagogue and so forth they can attend, which deity they can pray to and religious attire that will be accepted and which will not.

    This is not progress. This is not a step forward. This is going back in time of the Middle Ages, and it certainly is NOT about providing a solution against religious extremists.

    Another great expose Matthew!

    The point you made about dividing and conquering is also extremely important. People have already been fed and made to believe in evil-cult and be made suspicious of people living together through the horrific murders that took place in Jonestown and in Wacco. The campaign of misinformation and manipulation by the media is extreme in what concerns any type of alternative spirituality.

    If people started to realize the intensity of attacks toward alternative beliefs, they would realize it’s only a matter of time before they come for their supposedly more widely accepted spiritual beliefs.

  11. Seems like a one world religious authority would really bolster and perpetuate the ‘war on terror’ (not to mention the war that is currently taking place against alternative spirituality). I’m sure any visible effort by a body of this kind to influence religions would be seen as an attack that needed to be violently opposed by religious extremists and might even encourage people who are not currently violent or are sitting on the fence to take up arms.

    And for the majority of people who would not violently oppose any attempts to have their religious freedoms stifled what would be the outcome? Would it become illegal to have a spiritual practice that differed from what the ‘unquestionable authority’ declared was the will of God similar to the current environment in China?

    It’s scary to contemplate, and seems pretty fishy after reading all the history and intrigue behind it.

  12. A UN of religions… How can we trust any measures to fight “terrorism”? So much of the war on terror has been a sham. Whether or not they pull off this “religious authority” at this point in time, it seems it’s obviously on the agenda of some power out there.

  13. It’s helpful to consider this broader view of what may be happening all around us.

    In the day to day flow of events the bigger picture and the goals they might serve are difficult to see.

    But taking a step back like this and you can clearly see how the creation of a religious extremist bogeyman and the cult bogeyman are two prongs of the same pitchfork — both strengthen the position of “safe”, mainstream versions of religions that can easily be controlled, or drive people away from religion altogether.

    In both cases, the freedom to explore spiritiality is curtailed.

  1. Pingback: Rockefellers Club of Rome Advises Pope Francis, Would-be Ruler of the World and of World Religions, on Pharisaic NWO. Therefore, He Rejects Christ | NEW.EURO-MED.DK

  2. Pingback: Духовност у новом светском поретку – Ватикан као октопод? (Други део) | СРБски ФБРепортер

  3. Pingback: Is a one world religious authority in formation? | Follow The Money

  4. Pingback: Se está creando una religión única mundial? |



  7. Pingback: New World Order Spirituality: Blueprint for a Global Religious Authority - Revolution of the Mind

  8. Pingback: Spirituality in the New World Order: Is a One World Religious Authority in Formation? « Socio-Economics History Blog

  9. Pingback: Spirituality in the New World Order: Is a one world religious authority in formation? | Nobola

  10. Pingback: New World Order Spirituality: Blueprint for a Global Religious Authority | Deus Nexus

  11. Pingback: WakingTimes – New World Order Spirituality: Blueprint For A Global Religious Authority – 18 March 2015 | Lucas 2012 Infos

  12. Pingback: New World Order Spirituality: Blueprint for a Global Religious Authority | Alternative News Network

  13. Pingback: Spirituality in the New World Order: Blueprint for a Global Religious Authority - Waking Times : Waking Times


  15. Pingback: War on Consciousness/spirituality and the new world order is a one world religious authority in formation. Conscious Reporter. | amnesiaclinic